Denied
68 denied decisions from Munich (DE) Local Division.
Denied Decisions
68 cases | Page 2 of 3
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Shanghai Sunmi Technology Co., Ltd
This UPC decision addressed an application for provisional measures (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction) filed by Nokia against Sunmi Technology in the context of a dispute involving standard essential patents (SEPs). The court provided detailed legal guidance on when infringement is threatened and how Anti-Suit Injunctions are treated under the UPC framework. While the specific request for injunction was ultimately dismissed, the ruling offers significant clarity to practitioners regarding the threshold for provisional measures and the nature of rights violations in complex cross-border disputes.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
In this UPC case, SWARCO FUTURIT sought evidence preservation regarding alleged patent infringement by Yunex GmbH concerning specialized collection optics used in LED display panels. The court ultimately dismissed the application because of procedural actions taken by the respondent, making further investigation unnecessary. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements within the UPC framework for preliminary measures like evidence preservation.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad Genetics S.r.l., Myriad GmbH, Myriad Genetics S.A.S., Myriad Genetics B.V., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Myriad Service GmbH, Myriad Genetics GmbH, Eurobio Scientific
In this UPC case, GXD-Bio Corporation sued Myriad Genetics and others for alleged infringement of EP 3 346 403. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence to hear claims related to acts predating the claimant's registration as proprietor. The Judge-rapporteur rejected this objection, affirming the UPC's subject-matter jurisdiction over infringement actions. This ruling clarifies that standing issues are matters of merit and not grounds for excluding the case at the preliminary stage.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In this UPC case, the respondents challenged the court's jurisdiction over alleged infringement acts that occurred before the UPC Agreement came into force. The court decisively rejected this objection, affirming its competence to hear claims concerning pre-UPC period activities. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the temporal scope of the UPC's jurisdiction, providing certainty for claimants pursuing historical infringement claims.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This procedural order in the UPC addressed a request by Ericsson (Defendants) to classify certain information related to pre-dispute license negotiations as confidential under R. 262A RoP. Ericsson sought protection for internal calculations and negotiation details, arguing they were highly confidential business secrets. The Court ultimately rejected this application entirely, emphasizing that parties cannot restrict their own access to their proprietary information during proceedings.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against a second counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that Art. 33 (2) UPCA requires an expansive interpretation of lis pendens, applying not only across different divisions but also within the same division. As the patent's validity was already subject to prior proceedings in the same court, the second counterclaim was rejected as inadmissible.
Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed jurisdictional issues concerning multiple actions on the same patent. The court held that if an action for revocation is already pending between the same parties in the same division, a subsequent counterclaim for revocation must be rejected as inadmissible (lis pendens). This decision clarifies the scope of Article 33(2) UPCA, preventing duplicative litigation and ensuring procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 646 825, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed Meril's request for a partial stay of proceedings related to cost decisions and confidential information. Despite arguments from both sides regarding the need for a tailored suspension, the Court ultimately dismissed Meril's application. The decision underscores the strict interpretation of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
BF exaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving NVIDIA and two German claimants (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG). The defendants sought to change the court language from German to English, matching the patent grant language. However, the Court ultimately dismissed this request. The ruling emphasizes that while convenience for large corporations is a factor, the principle of ensuring fair access to justice for medium-sized enterprises must take precedence when weighing the interests of the parties.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application to revoke provisional measures based on alleged procedural deadlines. The Applicant argued that because court fees were not received by the Court before a specific deadline, the proceedings had not properly started. However, the Court rejected this argument, clarifying the precise wording of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). The ruling emphasizes that 'paid' is sufficient under Rule 15(2) RoP for lodging, and merely filing in the CMS satisfies the requirement to 'start' proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
Huawei sought a provisional measure (Anti-Suit/Anti-Enforcement Injunction) against Netgear, arguing that Netgear's US antitrust lawsuit threatened its European patent rights related to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei contended that such an injunction would constitute an unlawful interference with its property rights in Germany. Although the court recognized the potential illegality of such a measure under German law, it ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures.
Häfele SE & Co KG v.Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co
In this UPC case concerning a cabinet levelling apparatus, Häfele SE & Co KG sought provisional measures against Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. The court ultimately denied the request for an injunction, citing that doubts regarding the patent's legal basis could weigh against granting such relief. Despite denying the immediate measure, the court set the disputed value of the patent at EUR 500,000, providing a clear financial benchmark for future proceedings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Claimant) sued Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Respondents) for infringement of EP 3646825. The Defendants sought to compel the UPC to request information from the European Commission regarding ongoing antitrust investigations into the Claimant's patent practices. However, the Panel rejected this request, finding that the preliminary nature of the EC proceedings meant no formal investigation had been opened. This decision underscores the Court's focus on procedural efficiency and its reliance on established facts presented during hearings.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Munich addressed applications filed by Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, seeking information about ongoing antitrust investigations by the European Commission against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, finding that the Claimant's assertion—that the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation—was undisputed. This decision keeps the main infringement proceedings moving forward without external interference from EU competition authorities.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the determination of costs for an appeal stage. The claimant, SES-imagotag SA, opposed the request from Hanshow entities to recover substantial appeal costs (€131,874.80). The court ultimately rejected the cost claim because the respondents missed the strict one-month deadline for filing the costs application under Rule 151 EPGVerfO. Their subsequent attempts to cure this procedural defect were deemed invalid due to improper filing and failure to pay required fees.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This decision addresses procedural questions regarding the proper party to file a revocation counterclaim against in UPC proceedings. The court clarified that while the material owner is the ultimate rights holder, the registered patent holder can also be correctly sued for revocation purposes. This flexibility aims to streamline the process and prevent the alleged infringer from having to prove complex ownership chains.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Stephen George Edrich, Cooper Marc Gary, McKenna Paul John
In this UPC case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer systems. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent by the defendants' products. Furthermore, the defendants' counterclaims seeking to invalidate the patent were also rejected. This decision reaffirms the scope and validity of the asserted technology while concluding that the specific accused products do not meet the criteria for infringement.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought to expand its infringement lawsuit against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH to include OTECH Germany GmbH. The UPC Local Division of Munich rejected the request for party change, citing procedural issues and process economics. While the claimant argued lack of prior knowledge regarding OTECH's activities, the court maintained that the delay was not justifiable and suggested a new separate action could be filed if necessary.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC decision, Avago Technologies sued Tesla regarding the infringement of EP 1 838 002, a patent covering programmable hybrid transmitters. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Tesla, declaring the patent invalid for Germany because its claims were anticipated by prior art (D3). This ruling not only dismissed the infringement claim but also established a significant precedent regarding the enforceability of patents facing strong prior art challenges within the UPC framework.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the proper filing of exhibits and the extension of deadlines in an infringement action involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities. The Defendants argued that procedural errors, such as the exhibit replacement request not being filed by the strictly designated CMS representative, warranted a full deadline extension. However, the UPC Panel rejected this argument, emphasizing the general duty to support proceedings and the need for efficient case management. The Court confirmed that while flexibility exists in representation (Rule 8.2 RoP), procedural extensions must be used cautiously. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own non-compliance with procedural duties.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case, Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim against Ericsson, specifically to include requests for injunctive relief and recall of infringing products. The court ultimately rejected this application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The decision emphasizes strict procedural adherence in SEP litigation within the UPC, particularly regarding when remedies like injunctions can be introduced.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a 5G SEP patent (EP3342086), Motorola Mobility LLC sought leave to amend its infringement claim to include requests for injunctive relief and product recall against Ericsson. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, ruling that the Claimant had not acted with sufficient diligence. The court noted that similar remedies could have been requested earlier, citing prior actions in the UK, thereby limiting the ability of SEP holders to unilaterally delay enforcement while claiming FRAND obligations.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In this UPC decision, the court addressed a procedural dispute regarding the submission of pleadings in an infringement case. The respondents sought extensions for their reply and rejoinder, citing redacted documents from the claimant's initial filing. However, the court rejected these requests, establishing a strict rule that placeholders via redactions are procedurally unacceptable. This ruling emphasizes the importance of full transparency and timely disclosure of all arguments to ensure a fair defense process in UPC litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division addressed complex issues surrounding pleading redactions and deadlines in a multi-faceted infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court allowed for an exception regarding redacted documents but firmly maintained that the timelines for challenging the patent's validity (revocation) remain separate from the main infringement proceedings. This decision clarifies how procedural hurdles, such as document presentation, interact with substantive legal challenges in the UPC.
Dyson Technology Ltd. v.SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Ltd. sought interim injunctions against SharkNinja for alleged infringement of EP 2 043 492, a patent covering hand-held vacuum cleaners. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the claims of both parties, meaning no provisional injunction was granted. Beyond the specific outcome, the decision provided important procedural guidance on timing and scope when applying for interim measures in UPC proceedings. This ruling reinforces the need for careful case preparation while acknowledging the practical constraints of summary relief.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request made by Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Texas Instruments. The court ruled that general concerns about enforcing judgments in the US were insufficient to warrant requiring security from the claimant. This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice within the UPC, balancing IP protection with the right to a fair hearing.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich dismissed the application filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). NST argued that its limited financial resources and the complexities of enforcing judgments in the US made it an unsuitable party to bear the cost security. The court countered this by emphasizing the general enforceability of UPC decisions abroad and noting that NST failed to provide concrete evidence of insolvency or enforcement difficulties, ultimately upholding the claimant's right to access justice.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.